Senefeld, Jonathon W.

ABSTRACT Although severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and hospitalization associated with COVID-19 are generally preventable among healthy vaccine recipients, patients with immunosuppression have poor immunogenic responses to COVID-19 vaccines and remain at high risk of infection with SARS-CoV-2 and hospitalization. In addition, monoclonal antibody therapy is limited by the emergence of novel SARS-CoV-2 variants that have serially escaped neutralization. In this context, there is interest in understanding the clinical benefit associated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma collected from persons who have been both naturally infected with SARS-CoV-2 and vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2 (“vax-plasma”). Thus, we report the clinical outcome of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and who received contemporary COVID-19-specific therapeutics (standard-of-care group) and a subgroup who also received concomitant treatment with very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma (vax-plasma group) with a specific focus on hospitalization rates. The overall hospitalization rate was 2.2% (5 of 225 patients) in the vax-plasma group and 6.2% (10 of 161 patients) in the standard-of-care group, which corresponded to a relative risk reduction of 65% ( P = 0.046). Evidence of efficacy in nonvaccinated patients cannot be inferred from these data because 94% (361 of 386 patients) of patients were vaccinated. In vaccinated patients with immunosuppression and COVID-19, the addition of vax-plasma or very high titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma to COVID-19-specific therapies reduced the risk of disease progression leading to hospitalization. IMPORTANCE As SARS-CoV-2 evolves, new variants of concern (VOCs) have emerged that evade available anti-spike monoclonal antibodies, particularly among immunosuppressed patients. However, high-titer COVID-19 convalescent plasma continues to be effective against VOCs because of its broad-spectrum immunomodulatory properties. Thus, we report clinical outcomes of 386 immunocompromised outpatients who were treated with COVID-19-specific therapeutics and a subgroup also treated with vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma. We found that the administration of vaccine-boosted convalescent plasma was associated with a significantly decreased incidence of hospitalization among immunocompromised COVID-19 outpatients. Our data add to the contemporary data providing evidence to support the clinical utility of high-titer convalescent plasma as antibody replacement therapy in immunocompromised patients.

Plasma collected from people recovered from COVID-19 (COVID-19 convalescent plasma, CCP) was the first antibody-based therapy employed to fight the pandemic. CCP was, however, often employed in combination with other drugs, such as the antiviral remdesivir and glucocorticoids. The possible effect of such interaction has never been investigated systematically. To assess the safety and efficacy of CCP combined with other agents for treatment of patients hospitalized for COVID-19, a systematic literature search using appropriate Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms was performed through PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane central, medRxiv and bioRxiv. The main outcomes considered were mortality and safety of CCP combined with other treatments versus CCP alone. This review was carried out in accordance with Cochrane methodology including risk of bias assessment and grading of the quality of evidence. Measure of treatment effect was the risk ratio (RR) together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 11 studies (8 randomized controlled trials [RCTs] and 3 observational) were included in the systematic review, 4 studies with CCP combined with remdesivir and 6 studies with CCP combined with corticosteroids, all involving hospitalized patients. One RCT reported information on both remdesivir and steroids use with CCP. The use of CCP combined with remdesivir was associated with a significantly reduced risk of death (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.56–0.97; p = 0.03; moderate certainty of evidence), while the use of steroids with CCP did not modify the mortality risk (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.34–1.51; p = 0.38; very low certainty of evidence). Not enough safety data were retrieved form the systematic literature analysis. The current evidence from the literature suggests a potential beneficial effect on mortality of combined CCP plus remdesivir compared to CCP alone in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. No significant clinical interaction was found between CCP and steroids.

Hypoxia exacerbates fatigue via central mechanisms after ischemic single-leg exercise. The greater fatigue observed during ischemic dynamic fatiguing exercise with hypoxia inspirate did not differ between the sexes. Hypoxia-induced central limitations are present in acute ischemic exercise and do not appear different in males and females.

ABSTRACT During infectious disease emergencies, it may be necessary to deploy new therapies without conclusive evidence for their effectiveness. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, several countries used registries to track the use of COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Those registries provided evidence that CCP was effective when used early and with high titer.

Abstract Exercise intolerance and exertional dyspnoea are the cardinal symptoms of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In HFrEF, abnormal autonomic and cardiopulmonary responses arising from locomotor muscle group III/IV afferent feedback is one of the primary mechanisms contributing to exercise intolerance. HFrEF patients also have pulmonary system and respiratory muscle abnormalities that impair exercise tolerance. Thus, the primary impetus for this review was to describe the mechanistic consequences of locomotor muscle group III/IV afferent feedback and respiratory muscle work in HFrEF. To address this, we first discuss the abnormal autonomic and cardiopulmonary responses mediated by locomotor muscle afferent feedback in HFrEF. Next, we outline how respiratory muscle work impairs exercise tolerance in HFrEF through its effects on locomotor muscle O 2 delivery. We then discuss the direct and indirect evidence supporting an interaction between locomotor muscle group III/IV afferent feedback and respiratory muscle work during exercise in HFrEF. Last, we outline future research directions related to locomotor and respiratory muscle abnormalities to progress the field forward in understanding the pathophysiology of exercise intolerance in HFrEF.